chairwoman of the freedom of the press committee. breaking news reporter for u.s.a. today. senior producer for al jazz -- al jazeera english. chairman of the press club's freedom of the press committee. [video clip] bureau chief for routers washington bureau. -- maryland chief for reuters washington bureau. vice president and bureau chief for cbs news. a reporter with u.s.a. today, vice chairwoman of the freedom of the press club here. executive vice president for haguer sharp and the speakers committee member who organized today's event. thank you. founding director of the shine sign the center and a guest

scholar. host of on the record with gretta van sustran on fox. senior business editor at n.p.r. a member of the press board governors. managing editor with the sunlight foundation. [applause] in may 2012 the associated press reported on a c.i.a. operation to detonate a bomb on an airplane headed for the u.s. the justice department notified the secretly obtained phone records of some individual a.p. reporters as well as bureaus in new york, washington and connecticut and the house of representatives press gallery.

some 20 phone lines assigned to the journalists were tracked. the justice department did not explain why the phone records were seized. our speaker today, the president and c.e.o. of the a.p. responded immediately. he wrote to attorney general eric holder calling this seizure a massive intrusion into the news gathering activities of the a.p. he said the action interfered with the a.p.'s rights to gather and report the news. he speaks as not only the head of one of the largest news gathering organizations but also as a first amendment lawyer. his career as a freedom of speech lawyer led to the position for the third largest newspaper company in the u.s. six years later he took a leadership position at "the sacramento bee," became publisher and embarked on a series of corporate leadership positions.

he served as c.e.o. from 1996 until he became the head of the a.p. last year. the a.p. is a not for profit cooperative owned by member newspapers with 3700 employees in more than 300 locations worldwide. more than half the world's populations sees news reported by the a.n. on any given day. he probable thought his biggest challenge would be the transformation in digital markets. he says the seizure is having a chilling effect on news gathering itself and if journalists are restricted people will know only what the government wants them to know. please join me in giving a warm welcome to the c.e.o. of the associated press, mr. gary pruitt. [applause]

>> thank you angela. and i want to thank the national press club for inviting me today and i want to thank them for the really cool cupcakes they put together with all the logo through the years of a.p. i think it's really artfully done and deliciously done. for those of you who don't want your cupcake, bring it to the a.p. table. i'm sorry for those of you watching online on c-span that you're not going to get those cupcakes. but before coming here today to speak, i thought it would be a good idea to get a sense of how the seizure of a.p.'s phone records by the u.s. department of justice was affecting our reporting. and what i learned from our journalists should alarm everyone in this room and i

think should alarm everyone in the country. the actions of the d.o.j. against a.p. are already having an impact beyond the specifics of this particular case. some of our long time trusted sources have become nervous and anxious about talking to us even on stories that aren't about national security. and in some cases government employees that we once checked in with regularly will no longer speak to us by phone and some are reluctant to meet in person. in one instance our journalists couldn't get a law enforcement official to confirm a detail that had been reported by other media. i can tell you that this chilling effect does not just go on at ap. it is happening in other news organizations as well. other journalists have told me that sources have been intimidated from speaking with

them. the government may love this. i suspect they do. beware the government that loves secrecy too much. i want to provide you information on the ap seizure of phone records. what ap is doing about it, and the implications for us all. let me recap how the started. angela touched on briefly. it started may 7 of last year. ap published a story about a foiled plot of an al qaeda affiliate. al qaeda were planning on using a new and sophisticated bomb to destroy an airliner headed towards the united states. the cia had reported this attack. it was intended to coincide with the first anniversary of the killing of bin laden. that is a real scoop.

it was broken by two ap national security reporters. it was not, however, a story that was a surprise to the united states government. ap had held the story for five days, at the government's request. the operation was still ongoing. only after the administration had reassured us that the national security risks had been allayed, did we release the story. ap acted responsibly. the story was important on its own merits. americans have the right to know that such an attack was being plotted and that their government was able to prevent it. the story also brought into question a statement made by jay

carney. two weeks earlier, he had said that we had no credible information that terrorist organizations are plotting attacks in the united states to coincide with the anniversary of osama bin laden's death. yet, here was the associated press finding out that the cia has been in the middle of foiling such a plot. the person who was going to carry the bomb was a double agent. he was working with the cia, the saudi's, and the british. some said that the associated press got the context wrong. this was a cia scheme, they said. that interpretation strains credulity. this was an al qaeda operation. they constructed the bomb. its agents were working to activate that plan.

the story received wide attention. soon after, the doj announced that they were launching a leak investigation. fast forward one year, last friday, we received a letter from the department of justice informing us that they had received the records for 21 ap phone lines. we now know that that was over a 40 day timeframe. this was on an president-- an unprecedented intrusion into ap's newsgathering records. we had never seen anything like this before. it was an intrusion by government that was so wrong, so overreaching, so secretive. it violated a protection zone of the first amendment provides journalists.

we cannot dispute that the u.s. government has the right to pursue those who leak classified information. this administration has prosecuted leakers like no other in the country's history. the justice department has ruled on how targeting the press works. this dates back to the watergate era. they require that a demand of the press be as narrowly drawn as possible. they require that news organizations be notified of the subpoena in advance. this gives them the time to appeal in courts. unless doing so would impair the integrity of the investigation. in the collection of the ap's phone records, the department of justice violated their own rules.

the subpoena was not focused as narrow as possible. it was broad. the telephone records seized included the work and personal numbers of ap journalists and general ap numbers in new york, washington, and hartford. it also included the number of the u.s. house of representatives press gallery that included ingoing and outgoing calls. these are not just the phone lines of our investigative team. these are general office in switchboard numbers. where more than 100 reporters and editors work. thousands of phone calls were swept up. among the ap phone records taken was the switchboard number of a number of locations. let me stop there. while they got the switchboard numbers, they also got a broad

sweep beyond active numbers. they got a switchboard number for a d.c. bureau that was stopped six years ago. they subpoenaed a line that belongs to a worker in hartford 17 years ago. we do not regard these as focused. the sweep of the records, you are thinking, now seems minor compared to the fact that we have now learned what the nsa has collected. they had the entire country's phone records. the doj was collecting ap records, not just a load them into databases, this was a specific criminal investigation. they have a dedicated team of prosecutors to look over. in doing so, they are accessing a broad swath of other news

gathering information that is protected by first amendment against precisely this type of intrusion. the second way the department of justice violated the rules was in executing the subpoena without notice to the associated press. we could not seek review. the doj claims that they had an exception. if they had notified us, it would impair their investigation. how could that be? ap could not tamper with these records. we do not have them in our possession. these records are maintained by the phone carriers. the doj claimed that by notifying ap, if they had notified us, they say it would have tipped off the leaker. the leaker knew about this investigation. it was publicly announced. it was publicly announced nine days after our story ran.

that kind of reasoning, about tipping off leakers, would apply in every single case. the press would never be given notice. they could never go to the courts. the exception would swallow the rule. had the department of justice came to us in advance, we could've helped them narrow the scope of the subpoena. if the doj and ap did not agree, then a court could decide which was right. there was never that opportunity. the department of justice acted as judge, jury, and executioner. they may have been acting in good faith. i will give them the benefit of the doubt. i suspect they got so single mindedly focused on the leak that they overlooked best. -- the first amendment

implications. the doj has a record, and they have probably used those as part of their investigation. we cannot unring that bell. i'm pleased to tell you that the justice department has given us assurances that phone records will continue to be walled off and protected. we appreciate those assurances. it does not excuse what they did. we want to make sure that it does not happen again. president obama has asked the attorney general for recommendations on the justice department's regulations in these areas. to that end, justice has been consulting with a number of news organizations and first amendment lawyers. meanwhile, in congress, there has been renewed support for a

law that would protect reporters from having to reveal their sources. this would extend, into the federal realm, laws that already exist in 30 states. the white house has expressed support for such legislation. ap believes that the following measures are imperative. first, we want the justice department to recognize the right of the press to advance notice and a chance to be heard before their records are taken by the government. this would have given us the chance to point out the many failings of the subpoenas. we believe that notice was required. the department of justice sees it differently. the regulations should be strengthened to remove any doubt. we want judicial oversight. we need to ensure the proper checks and balances.

in the phone records case, the justice department determined on its own that advance notice could be skipped without notice of any government. denying constitutional rights is not how the government should work. third, we want the department of justice to update their guidelines. to bring them into the 21st century. the guidelines were created before the internet. they did not foresee e-mails or text messages. the guidelines need to ensure that the protections afforded journalists encompass all forms of communication. fourth, we want a law that will protect journalists from secretive government action. fifth, we want to institute a formal protections from the justice department, that they

will not prosecute any reporters for doing their jobs. the department should not criminalize or threaten to criminalize journalists for doing her job, such as calling them co-conspirators under the espionage act. this needs to be part of an established directive, not limited to this administration. no one should be prosecuted for committing journalism. ap has no political dog in this fight. it is not about democrats or republicans. our issue is freedom of the press and the rights protected in the first amendment. if a reporter's phone records are open territory for the government to secretly monitor, news sources will be intimidated from talking to reporters. the ap is not going to be

intimidated, but our sources will be. and nonofficial news sources are critical to a free press, and critical for holding a government accountable. otherwise, you just hear from official sources. then, the public only knows what the government wants them to know. that is not what the framers had in mind when they wrote the first amendment. this month's headlines, if they show us anything, shows us how much information the government has. it is why a robust free press is more important than ever. this issue resonates beyond our borders. the freedom of press is a model and an aspiration for nations and peoples around the world. the department of justice's actions could not have been more tailor-made for an authoritative regime. the united states does it too, they can say.

it should not be this way. freedom of press is what differentiates democracy from dictatorship and a free society from tyranny. the first amendment is our collective covenant. that freedom will flourish on these shores. we should be concerned about a failure of the justice department. to recognize how its actions threaten that fundamental freedom. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. not surprisingly, we have a lot of questions. >> i suspected. >> you said that the department of justice violated its own rules.

you talked about the effort to update those rules. do you believe that revision will make a difference in how they carry out their practices? >> i hope they do. i can tell you that the greatest protection afforded reporters has been through these guidelines. that is why it is the focus of us going forward. we want them updated and approved. i think it was appropriate that the president asked the attorney general to look at these and to come forward with improvements and recommendations. all of us, in the media, and everyone in the country should look at what happens in july and what the improvements to those regulations are. we are extremely hopeful that they can provide clear guidance to the justice department's and

increased protection to the media. especially regarding the strained interpretation that the justice department is applying to those rules. >> what can guarantee that this will not happen again? >> well, we believe that the rules were violated. the department believes that they were not. they went ahead, in secret, and got their way. they scooped up all the records and told us, up to 90 days later. if they can do that, their perspective will always prevail. we need a check on that. the check is in another branch of government. the courts. we need to notice.

that is what the rules contemplate. only in exceptional cases can they go in secret. but under their reasoning, every case is an exceptional case. you don't want to tip off the leader in a public investigation? give me a break. we want the rules clarified. we want to make sure that department of justice cannot cite that exception. we think that will provide a much greater protection. we can help them clean up the subpoena. we could have helped in that regard. if they did not agree, a court could decide. none of that happened. that is because of their interpretation of the rules. they can be improved in a way that will improve the situation

going forward for all of us. >> do you consider this administration's response to the news media any different than other administrations? >> no. [laughter] >> why is it getting more attention now? why are we seeing these highly- publicized instances? >> this administration has been more aggressive going after leakers than other administrations. so it has more active leak investigations going on. this administration came in on a platform of transparency and more access. unfortunately, like past administrations, they have not lived up to that promise.

>> did the federal government threaten a form of retaliation against ap for advancing the story? either directly or indirectly. >> no. nothing like that. nothing like that happened. ap alone got the scoop. it was a very significant new story and a sensitive news story. ap went to the administration and talk to them about it. the ministration asked us to hold the story because of national security concerns and we did. the associated press does not want to endanger anyone's life or national security. we strive to act responsibly and we did in this case. only after we had heard from the government that the national

security risk had passed, then we ran the story. now, the white house asked us to hold the story one more day. not for national security reasons. they were going to announce the plot the next day. we did not feel that we should hold the story for that reason. so we released the story. we did not feel that national security was compromised. we did not get pushed back from them for running the story. we do not hear anything until a year later. we found out that our records and gotten scooped up as part of an investigation. we did not hear pushback at that time. >> if they did not state in detail why they did not want the

story published, what did the ap do at that time? >> i can tell you that we did hear that it could jeopardize safety and national security. that seems right. we did not want to jeopardize that. we didn't not want to create those problems. so we waited. we waited until we got reassurances that the operation was no longer under way. there was no security risk in running the story. i do not know the details of those conversations. those were the judgments that were made. it was not criticized by the government or the administration. they said that they would have

liked for us to hold one more day. because they were going to announce it. we did not do that. but that had nothing to do with national security. >> when the ap ran the story, did they have an inkling that the alleged bomber was a double agent? >> now we are getting into sensitive details. ap had a sense that there was a double agent involved. we did not report that. in part, because it could be a safety issue. after we released the story, the white house was very aggressive in talking about this story. john brennan talked to the media. he was head of counterterrorism at the time before heading up the cia.

he disclosed that the cia had internal control of the situation. that implication allowed others to draw the conclusion that there was a spy/double agent. then it was widely reported by others. including follow-ups by the ap that there was a double agent. but ap did not disclose the fact that a double agent was involved. the fact that internal control only came from the administration and was reported more widely by other news organizations. >> if this was about when the story was published, why do you think that now attorney general holder has said that he considers this to be one of the most dangerous leaks ever?

>> that is a good question. [laughter] i do not know the answer. i have that same question. maybe he will come here and answer that question for you. >> the invitation is pending. [laughter] has ap changed its newsgathering methods as a result of the department of justice? >> the short answer is no. we are looking at -- at our contracts very carefully with our phone service providers. where making sure that we can try to get as much notice as possible, that we want to have as much knowledge about how we can protect our records as we can. we are looking at encryption and security that we can build into our internet and online activity. we are doing a generally because

of hackers. we are looking, very vigilantly, at secrecy protection and anonymity of sources. and protection of our records. we're doing that more than ever before. that is an arms race that will continue forever. we are having to deal with sources differently. people are anxious about having their phone number associated with the ap. that could be going on in your news organization. you don't know it. you'll find out 90 days later. you will get a surprise in the mail. like we did. that goes on. there are fewer nonofficial sources. there is reluctance on sources. it may require more personal meetings, but we also know that department of justice could

follow reporters. and what they are doing on foot. journalism goes on. we will do our best to make sure that we protect our sources and still get the stories by every means possible. >> you talked about the integrity of your service providers. have you asked your service providers to pushback on the government when they violate your privacy rights? >> the phone service providers, when they get subpoenaed from the government, they comply and are required to. the government also notifies them not to notify us. they are not put in a comfortable position.

the answer to this is not in trying to -- and they have to abide by the government -- the answer to this is not in trying to get a better contract with verizon. that is not the answer. the answer is getting better guidelines from the department of justice. >> what you think about the public's reaction to all this? does the general public, outside of the media community, understand what all this means? >> i think the reaction has been very gratifying. i did not expect this story to be that big a story. i knew it would be a new story. i do not think it would be this big a story. it could have been for several reasons, oh, it was the third scandal, with benghazi and the irs. it got more attention than i thought it would. i thought it would be regarded a pure press issue.

i was pleased that the american public saw it as a broader issue. an issue of -- is the government harassing the media? can this affect us? does this affect us? does this violate the first amendment? that is a good debate to have. that is a good issue. i was very pleased that it did. i think the justice department was surprised by the reaction. that may be the biggest protection that we have. they do not want that backlash again. i sure hope not. and i hope it prevents them from doing this again. we were pleased with the reaction. and i do think this has gotten traction worldwide. not always to the benefit of the united states, as i said in my speech. some countries were surprised that this could go on in the united states. the ap is known around the world.

this was not a local newspaper. god love local newspapers, but the associated press is worldwide. when countries around the world and press agencies around the world heard that the united states government was doing this to the ap and they were shocked and surprised. we received it an enormous outpouring of support. there were surprised that the united states government could do this. i was surprised, a little surprised, that it became such a major story. i am pleased that it did. i hope it will act as a preventative for future actions from the justice department. >> the next question is about how to better engage and mobilize the public? you say that they are engaged. but everything is fleeting. the questioner notes calls and arrests from the "guardian" and "washington post" reporters. how do you keep the story at the

forefront of public attention? >> i know some of the polls show that this is not resonate with the public like the irs scandal the irs will resonate with everyone in a different way. but i think it is important for the media to point out how this affects the people. not just the media. it is about holding the government accountable. the government has never been more powerful. technology gives the government power that it could never dream of before. but that is all the more reason why the press needs to be stronger. we are the surrogate of the people. this is the only way the public will be informed.

we have to couch our arguments and are positions in terms of the people. why it is important for them. yes, these stories do, go, but i will tell you something -- when people sense of the government is overreaching, they rise up. they speak up. that happened here. i was wrong. i thought this would be insignificant. boy, i was wrong. it was great. this did resonate. this will have an impact. and if it happened again, it will resonate further. let's hope the silver lining from this is that we get better updated and improved guidelines from the justice department. that we will get a shield law. that we will get a recognition that reporters activities are not criminal act.-- criminal acts. we will, therefore, have a freer

society. >> should reporters be objective and impartial when it comes to covering press freedom. as news organizations, should we be doing more to pushback against this type of surveillance? >> ap is a nonprofit news organization. it does not have editorial positions and it does not express opinions. we cover the news, as objectively as possible, day in and day out. we should do that on every topic. including press freedom issues. if we don't, we lose credibility. our stake is clear. on the opinion page or an editorial page, that is different. that is a place for opinions. it is a marketplace of ideas that argue every which way. the justice department deserves their say. they disagree with me. great. that is ok.

we think they are wrong. we will state it clearly. i think the media needs to speak up for itself. we need to push for a law. we need to push for new regulations. needs to be active in that regard, but should absolutely covered straight and eight -- and objectively and not lose that because that will erode our credibility. and it will look self- interested. >> a follow-up from before. if the justice department violated so many of its rules, why did they bother to tell ap in the first place? >> they had to. the law required them to notify us after they did this. they can sweep it up secretly. they can wait up to 90 days to tell us about it. we do not know when they

captured these phone records. we are not sure. we know that it should have been within 90 days of when we got the notice. we got on may 10. they had to do it. they knew it would be public eventually. it was public after they obtained the records. and we had lost all opportunities to try to narrow the focus of the subpoena or get a court involved to sort out what the proper scope of the subpoena would be. we would love that opportunity. we got notice. >> walter pincus in his "washington post" column argued that the story was a national security risk and should not have been published. what do you think of this take?

>> i respect walter pincus as a reporter. i think he is wrong. we were very concerned about national security. we handled it responsibly. we were not criticized by the administration in releasing and running the story. do i think they were happy that we got the story? no. did they criticize us for jeopardizing national security? no. i think if that comes up now, over a year later, that is more suspicious, to me. we did not hear that at the time. i think ap did actress was a-- act responsibly.

the white house did announce the next day. i do not know when the white house was going to announce this, absent the ap story. i just do not know. >> a questioner asks, if revealing information of the crime, why shouldn't it be a crime for reporters to publish classified information? >> this person has an elusive grasp of the first amendment. so, government employees -- it is a crime for government employees to reveal leak information. classified information. this is a complicated issue. we all know that information in the government is over classified. there is way too much information is classified. a lot of it is classified that should not be. some of it is embarrassing. or they don't want it out.

there's a lot of overclassification that goes on. the government acknowledges this. post-9/11, one of the criticisms was that our intelligence information was siloed. we needed to connect the dots. and we needed to have a more integrated intelligence network to prevent terrorism. so we did. maybe that helped to prevent terrorism. it could well be. millions of documents are classified document -- information. almost a million contractors have access to confidential information. and low-level people have access to confidential information. privates in the military can leak information to wiki leaks. government contractors that drop -- that dropped out of high school can relieve -- can

release massive amounts of information. this will happen when you have 3 million people with classified clearance. you are going to have leakers. it is inevitable. it is going to keep happening. like i said, we do not challenge the government's right to pursue these investigations. they have that right. it is a complicated issue. we are not taking a position on that. the administration, the justice department, they make their own determinations as to what leak investigations they will pursue. our complaint was how they conducted the investigation. that is what we want to keep the focus on. it is a free press issue for us. when a journalist does his or her job -- our job is to ask questions, and when we find out information and we are doing our job, that should not be a crime. we agree with president obama

when he says that. we agree with the attorney general when he says that. we think it should be clear in these guidelines and rules. this should be something that we do not have to ask for. we think this is embedded in the first amendment. that journalists doing their job, finding out information, that should not be a crime. in fact, that is what we rely on to hold government accountable, what we rely on to have a free rest so that we can be an informed public so that we can have a robust debate inside of a marketplace of ideas. the united states is not afraid of that. we should not become afraid of that. we should welcome those debates. the president says that he welcomes this debate. ok. we do, too. let's have that debate. as they decide -- and as a society, talk about it. you cannot have that debate if you do not have information. we need journalists to do that.

they have to do their job without fear of being prosecuted for doing their jobs. not only will sources be intimidated, but journalists will be intimidated. i do not want to live in that country. >> do you know if any of the sources have been punished by the government? >> i'm sorry? >> whether any of the sources for the story have been punished. >> i do not know who the source was for our story. i have no idea of their status. the investigation is ongoing. i know that there has not been any punishment or formal charges brought. i'm sure we will know when and if they are. >> another follow-up, did your

reporting do any harm to the double agent and do you care? >> of course we care. we do not want our reporting to jeopardize people's security or national security. we were careful, in this case, to make sure that we did not. we do not publish the story until two parts of the government told us that national security issues had passed. only then did we release a story. we do not reveal that a double agent was involved. we did not hear from the administration or the intelligence community. that there was any risk to the double agent because of our story. if there had been risk, we would have heard about it. they would have told us. that was probably the reason that they want us to hold it, and we did.

>> you mentioned a similar situation with mr. rosen at fox news. how do you compare that to what happened with ap? >> i think they are similar. in some ways, ours is worse. in some ways, that situation is worse. i think our situation is broader. ours was a very broad and overreaching, sweeping, and gathering of news information in secret. i think what the justice department did in the rosen case was more offensive, they put in a subpoena for a search warrant saying that he was a co- conspirator under the espionage act. in other words, he may have been violating the espionage act and be a criminal. he was acting as a journalist.

as i said, we do not think people should be prosecuted for committing journalism. given the degree of what they went after and how they tracked him, meetings he had, etc., i think there was more searching and a deeper investigation into his particular activities. in that sense, it was more troubling. both cases raise substantial issues. >> you're pointing to the importance of a free press and the role of it. the economics of the news business are going in the other direction. there are fewer bureaus and less money. >> it has become more difficult because the economics of newsgathering have become strained.

traditional media has less resources to devote to import newsgathering. that is the reality. that is the reality. i can tell you that the work remains excellent. there are still thousands of journalists doing high quality work. many are here in washington. while i think that is a concern, i think the greater concern is local. local newspapers and tv stations have fewer resources available to cover local news and local issues. that is the bigger issue. there's is still a strong robust reporting going on in the nation's capital. traditional media builds its revenue based on what it can

sustain. investigative reporting is essential to the country. i am hopeful of that. we'll have to see how it goes. it is something that is a concern. we see resources for newsgathering declining. >> lots of people would like to know your take on edward snowden. do you consider him a whistleblower? leaker? where do you stand on that? >> i am not going to speak to that. if i do, that becomes what gets reported. my opinion of edward snowden is not important.

it is not relevant to the topic that i am speaking on today. as i said, i'm trying to avoid having this type of investigation happen again. my opinion of what you do a person is. i would say that i agree with president obama in that i welcome the debate. i think it could be a healthy debate for the country. our issue today is the issue for ap. we're used to covering the news. we are not used to the new story. -- we're not used to being the

news story. it is not entirely comfortable for us. we are doing our best to cover it objectively. it is up to me to speak and articulate ap's position. i will do that. it is not our position to mouth off on every issue. >> do you think major media outlets have sufficiently scrutinized the obama administrations targeting of whistleblowers? >> i'm not sure. i think that the ap issued and the fox news issue created greater awareness and more focus on the obama administrations aggressive stance towards leakers.

i think that that is more well known. it is gotten more scrutiny. and it may not have gotten much attention before. it will get more now. >> we're almost out of time. before i ask the last question, i have a couple of matters to take care of. i want to remind you of our upcoming speakers. we have carly fiorina. we have jim rogers. second, i would like to present our guest with a traditional coffee mug. >> great. thank you. thank you very much. >> we have had a serious hour.

our sources tell us that you like to use rock lyrics in your speeches. could you find lyrics that would describe what has happened with the ap in doj? -- and doj? [laughter] >> let me think. do you have another question? >> that's it. >> "gimme shelter." and, another rolling stones song, "this could be the last time." [laughter] thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you all for coming. i would like to thank the staff.

finally, here is a reminder that you can find more information on our website. if you'd like to get a copy of today's program, you can find it there. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next a discussion on prayer in public schools. following that is week two addresses by president obama and representative kline. homefter that, reverse mortgages. on "newsmakers" representative joe courtney. setent interest rates are to double unless congress takes action. "newsmakers" sunday at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern on c-span.

first ladies have a capacity for personifying. this is a pattern in american women in politics. thing is that they are women, real people that do things. the secondary capacity of being a personifying figure, charismatic figure. many a first lady has come to become one and realizes it is larger than life. she makes the white house into a symbol. 1808.s happening in 1814, the british would bring the capital city. all the work that she did to help identify with this house they call the white house is itng to pay off because

gives a surge of nationalism around the war. >> our focus on first ladies continues monday night. allorgor on why we study first ladies. >> even though gettysburg was the midpoint of the war, why does it loom so large in national memory? just it are statistics. three days of fighting -- consider the statistics. three days of fighting. 33,000 wounded. some later died. 11,000 missing. a staggering total of 55,000 casualties in one 3-day period. >> the anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. live coverage from the battle of gettysburg park.

tv" on c-an history span 3. >> now a discussion on the resurgence of prayer in public schools from "washington journal" earlier this week. this is 35 minutes. host: this week we look at the christian science monitor piece on prayer in school. lee lawrence is in new york city. the piece says 50 years after a supreme dourtbarnings prayer in scoop makes a comeback. -- in school makes a comeback. thanks for joining us this morning. it was 50 years ago that is supreme court essentially banned prepare. -- prayer. what were those decisions? >> the two decisions were in 196 -- 1962 and 1963 and they banned school sponsored prayer, not the action of praying in school. and so the first one was brought had started in new york with the

parents of about 10 children and the objection was that the school district imposed a morning prayer and in fact by the time it reached the supreme court it was no longer imposed, it was not mandatory. but there was a generic prayer to god to bless the parents, the teacher, the country, etc. and then in 1963 there was another case, abington in pennsylvania and there the issue was that the school district had a bible reading that was broadcast over the intercom and if it couldn't be on the intercom then the teacher led it and that was followed by the lord's prayer. and the family brought suit opposing prayer. even though it was not mandatory, the parents could have asked for the child to be excused.